Funding: This project was supported by the Canada Research Chair in Medical Decision Sciences and a grant from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation of Ontario. The views expressed in this paper are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Ontario Ministry of Health. The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, ...

There is an error in the Funding statement for this article. The correct Funding statement is: ‘‘The authors acknowledge the financial support from the China Scholarship Council to Zhangxi Hu. In addition, this work was supported by NOAA and NSF grants to MRM, and Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant Numbers 40776078, 40876074, 41176104, U1133003). The funders had no role in study ...

There are errors in the Funding section. The correct funding information is as follows: This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (NRF2012R1A2A2A01045884) and National Research Foundation of Korea (2012R1A5A2047939). The funders had no role in study design, data collecti...

President Bush’s long awaited decision on federal funding for stem cell research has a little for everybody but completely satisfies no one. By limiting research funding to some 60-odd existing stem cell lines (or colonies), did the president stake out a clear moral position or merely craft a political compromise? Whatever the answer, there are important implications for the future of research ...

PHARMAC aims to ensure fair allocation of funding across competing new medicines, and must ensure appropriate targeting of medicines to get best value for money. For this reason, our processes for assessing new pharmaceutical funding applications are necessarily diligent. PHARMAC’s process involves both expert clinical review, negotiation with suppliers, consultation with the health sector, and...

There are errors in the Funding section. The correct funding information is as follows: Research was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (206–08–0640), the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic (SVV260 087/2014), and the National Science Foundation (DEB0746560). Mouse pellets and genotyping of allopatric mice were reimbursed from the Czech Science Foundation (P506–1...

There are errors in the Funding section. The correct funding information is as follows: This study was supported by FAPESP (doctoral grant 2006/59916-0); CCSD-Missouri Botanical Garden (Elizabeth E. Bascom Fellowships for Latin American Female Botanists); a FAPESP-NSF-NASA Biota/Dimensions of Biodiversity Grant (FAPESP 12/50260-6); and a CNPq Pq-1C Grant to LGL. The funders had no role in study...

There is an error in the Funding statement. Please view the correct Funding statement here. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided...

There is an error in the funding statement. Please refer to the correct funding statement below. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: ß 2014 The PLOS ONE Staff. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, ...

The following information is missing from the Funding section: e:Kid from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The correct funding information is as follows: The work was supported by the grants Transregio 52 from the German Research Foundation (DFG) and e:Kid from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) to B.S. The funders had no role in study design, data colle...